Our investigation into the town of Blind River, and zoning issues for a development at Southminster Church, caught readers’ attention early this week. Then there is the “Bonjour-Hi” debate … You can write to us too, at letters@ottawacitizen.com

—

Our city holds some blame over Blind River

Re: How solar energy dreams became a nightmare for the small Ontario town of Blind River, Dec. 2.

I wonder if any of the past or present members of Ottawa city council and former top city staff who so ardently promoted Plasco are prepared to take any of the responsibility for the financial mess that the town of Blind River has got itself into?

Plasco’s contract with the city gave the company some of the credibility that undoubtedly helped ease Blind River’s decision to make a $25-million investment. Neither the city of Ottawa nor the town of Blind River undertook the due diligence necessary to understand that the Plasco pilot raised serious questions about the viability of the technology.

Private investors eventually figured out that the Plasco technology was unproven and financial returns would not be forthcoming. Too bad nobody told Blind River or North Shore Power.

Bonjour-Hi, readers. The continually irrelevant Parti Québécois recently introduced a non-binding motion in the National Assembly calling for business owners to greet customers with “bonjour” instead of “Bonjour-Hi.” “Bonjour-hi” was being frequently used by shopkeepers in certain areas of Quebec, particularly in Montreal.

Unbelievably, the motion passed and was unanimously supported by all parties in the National Assembly.

Yes, with the many issues we face as a province, this is where our politicians are turning their attention. French is a wonderful language, and measures to protect it such as accessible language training should be in place across Quebec. But harassing business owners with the travesty that is Bill 101, or passing ridiculous motions encouraging business owners to speak a certain way, are terrible ways to go about enshrining French in our culture.

Taxpaying business owners should greet whomever in whichever way they prefer. It is absolutely ridiculous to police private enterprises, through a non-binding legislative motion, in an effort to make them speak a certain way. What an international embarrassment!

Au revoir-Goodbye!

Benjamin Woodman, Gatineau

A better plan for Southminster development

Re: Hundreds oppose visual ‘dominance’ of proposed condos, Nov. 29.

In my intervention at planning committee over the Southminster United Church/Windmill Development Group proposal, I meant more than that the developers needed to lop off the top storey. I meant: Go back to the drawing board and come up with something for the same footprint that doesn’t leave the community with the height problem.

I’m pretty sure it can be done, given the high value of this iconic and attractive location, and still make the money the and the church needs. One way would be to build more units with less floor space and do that redesign within the 15-metre height limit.

Brian Tansey, Ottawa

Preserve the heritage of our neighbourhood

I am a longtime resident of Old Ottawa South, living in a small old canal house near Dow’s Lake. Southminster is a very important part of our community, acting as both spiritual focal point and social gathering place.

None of us wants to lose the church. But many of us can’t help thinking they have not made a very good deal with the developer. Nor do we like the fact that while the rezoning application asks for a designation of traditional main street, not an inch of the property to be developed is actually on a traditional main street.

Most of it fronts on Galt Street, which had part of its building height reduced to nine metres only a few years ago in recognition of the heritage nature of the surrounding properties.The community agrees that the church and developer rezone to traditional main street but we want them to respect the 15-metre height limitation of that designation.

We are delighted that planning committee has asked the developer and city planning staff to work together to modify the building design so that it reduces the height from the currently proposed 19.5 metres. Is this too much to ask to preserve the heritage and the heart of the neighbourhood and of the church itself?

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.